Abeto Vs Philippine Air Lines,Inc.
• The plane had undergone pre-flight checks, thorough
July 30, 1982
Relova, J. :
ENTITIES INVOLVED:
PAL –carrier
JUDGE QURICO ABATO – passenger/deceased
CONDRADA VDA. DE ABETO - plaintiff
FACTS:
1. Judge Quirico Abato boarded the Philippine Airline' PI-
C133 plane at the Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo City for
Manila
2. The plane did not reach its destination and there was
news that the plane went missing.
3. After 3 weeks, it was ascertained that the plane
crashed at Mt. Baco, Province of Mindoro.
4. All the passengers have been killed including Judge
Quirico Abeto
5. Condrada Vda. de Abeto , the wife of the deceased,
was appointed administratrix of the estate of Judge
Abeto.
6. Condrada, together with her children filed a
complaint for damages against Philippine Airlines for
the death of Judge Abeto.
7. Philippine Airlines, on the other hand, contends that
the plane crash was das due to a fortuitous event.
8. The trial court ruled in favor of Abeto and her
children.
DEFENSES:
• Plane Crash was beyond the control of the pilot.
• The plane was airworthy for the purpose of
conveying passengers across the country as shown
by the certificate of airworthiness issued by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration.
• There was navigational error but no negligence or
malfeasance on the part of the pilot.
checks, terminating checks and after-maintenance
checks.
• The deviation from its prescribed route was due to
bad weather condition.
ISSUE:
• Is Philippine Airlines liable for violation of its contract of
carriage?
RULING: Yes
The Civic Code, as the law governing the liability of
common carriers, is clear and explicit:
• Art. 1773 - binds common carriers from the nature
of their business and by reason of public policy to
observe extraordinary in vigilance for the safety of
the passengers transported by them according to all
the circumstances of each case.
• Art. 1755 - a common carrier is required to carry
the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of
every cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances.
• Art. 1756 - in case of death of or injuries to
passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
proved that they observed extra ordinary diligence.
• Art. 1757 - the responsibility of a common carrier
for the safety of passengers cannot be dispensed
with or lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices,
by statements on tickets, or otherwise,
PAL is liable for the death of Judge Abeto:
• The plane did not take the designated route which
was Iloilo-Romblon-Manila or "Amber I", if it had
 taken this route, then the crash would have not
happened.
• This was even supported by the statements of
Ramon Peroza (Administrative assistant of Philippine
Air Lines Inc.)and Cesar Mijares (Assistant Director of
the Civil Aeronautics Administration)
• The weather during that time was clear and the pilot
was supposed to cross airway "Amber I"' instead he
made a straight flight to Manila in violation of air
traffic rules.
• Since there’s no satisfactory explanation by PAL with
regard to the accident, then the presumption is it is
at fault.